User:Beefpatty06/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Eugenic feminism

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it stood out to me while I was browsing through Wikipedia for potential articles related to the course topic: "186B Global Feminism, 1850 to present." What particularly intrigued me was the juxtaposition of eugenics and feminism. Seeing these two concepts mentioned together was unexpected for me. I was curious to see how these two ideologies were reconciled since I've always seen eugenics presented in a negative aspect and feminism in a positive one.

Upon an initial reading, I noticed that the article is relatively brief and only appears to predominantly address the emergence of this movement in Canada and the United States. This focus was particularly intriguing because eugenics is a topic that is commonly associated with Nazi Germany and as such, I expected such a movement to originate in Europe.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead section

The introductory sentence in the lead section effectively introduces the reader to the topic, clarifying the term's meaning and identifying the person attributed with coining the term. The section, however, does not really include a brief description of the significant sections, although it does mention them and further explains what the leading theory behind eugenic feminism is. The lead does not include information that is not present in the rest of the article and is not overly detailed, but it is definitely very brief and might benefit from further expansion.

Content

The article's information is highly relevant to the topic but appears limited to events up until the 1930s, giving the impression that the movement faded after that period. It would be interesting to see if there are any more modern instances of the movement. The article would greatly benefit from an expansion on the resistance to this movement, especially the reactions from other feminists and eugenicists. Additionally, the article addresses Wikipedia's equity gaps by shedding light on this particular aspect of the feminist movement, which seems to be relatively unknown as both the feminist and eugenics movements overshadow it.

Tone and Balance

The article maintains a neutral tone throughout and does not appear to exhibit any noticeable bias. However, many viewpoints are either just briefly introduced or need to be elaborated upon. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader towards any particular position.

Sources and References

The facts presented in the article are supported by reliable secondary sources, which accurately represent the existing literature on the topic. However, these sources primarily focus on the 2000s, and the article would benefit from including more recent sources from the 2010s or 2020s to provide a contemporary perspective. The sources seem diverse, with the majority of the authors being female. More modern sources appear to be available; however, research on the subject also seems to be limited. Nonetheless, the provided links are functional. Including information from the further reading links in the article would also prove beneficial.

Organization and writing quality

The article is concise, clear, and easy to read, with no apparent grammatical errors. However, its organization could be enhanced because, as a result of the limited number of sections and information, the article is choppy.

Images and Media

The article features three images, each with a caption identifying the person in the photograph; however, only one of them includes a citation. The photographs are arranged traditionally and tie into the sections they are included in.

Talk page discussion

The talk page does not appear to be very active; however, there was notable discourse in 2018 regarding the deletion of some information from the article without clear reasoning. The debate on the talk page revolved around whether certain feminists mentioned in the article could be tied to the eugenics movement. This article is linked to several 'C-class' articles, including articles for creation. The discourse on Wikipedia differs from our classroom discussions on the contribution of non-white women to the feminist struggle as the talk page leans heavily towards white women, and the narrative seems more inclined to defend their character rather than to analyze the potential eugenic beliefs they may have held. Which, given what we have read in class, would not be surprising given that many minority feminist leaders often contend that white women were not always the best allies due to their ties to the systems of oppression.

Overall impressions

The article's current state could be more promising as it seems to be incomplete. Its main strength is that its topic is very controversial and invokes a strong response, as evidenced by the discussion on the talk page. However, its weakness is that it lacks comprehensive information. As such, enhancing the article with additional sections would be beneficial. Overall, the article is definitely underdeveloped, which seems to be a result of how niche the topic is.